Please consider these facts:-In Euclidean geometry any three non-collinear points determine a unique triangle and a unique plane (i.e. a two-dimensional Euclidean space).-On any triangle (Equilateral, isosceles, or Scalene) the length of one side, is always shorter than the sum of the two remaining sides.-Triangles are assumed to be two-dimensional plane figures, unless the context provides otherwise and therefore called a 2-simplex.

Consider the possibility that an angle can have two forms or that there are two types of the same angle, i call them:

1. Efficient angles2. Inefficient angles

-Whether the angle is efficient or not so, is a matter of perception. A: B-line, 180deg angle(1D)B: Perimeter(2D)C: "Perceptive Efficient" and "Perceptive Inefficient" Intercepting Angles(3D)

The B-line (single dimensional)would be more efficient on a two-dimensional plane from point A to point B. (hense B-Line) than from A-C. It would take up less space, use less matter..the bigger the space, the more efficient the B-Line would be. It would be considered a "Perceptive Efficient Angle". I'm sure there is a multiplier somebody could show me mathematically that would show this exponentially. I think there could be a sweet spot in the 2nd dimension(consisting of 2 90 degree angles or a square)where a B-line mass could be equal to it's efficiency. I would call this "Efficiently Static".

In it's own singular dimension, the longer the B-Line, the less efficient it would be. It would take up more space, contain more matter. It would then be a "Perceptive Inefficient Angle"...now i'm just making these names up now so bear with me...same go's, somebodys gotta have a formula for this ratio.

If a 2D perimeter was used on a 3D plane, it would be more efficient.

Eg. Cutting through a yard to get to a destination is faster than walking around the property.less energy would be exerted, time would be saved, the distance traveled comparatively would be further. This same angle would now be consisting of "Perceptive Efficient Angles"

On its own two dimensional plain a Perimeter is inefficient. It mass is relative to the matter is surrounds. The more mass it surrounds the bigger it will be. This Same angle would now be consisting of "Perceptive Inefficient Angles"

The Difference between the two could be called "Perceptive Dimensional Efficiency".

Now i'm no physicist, or even like math until recently BUT, if anyone wants to go ahead and test this against some laws of geometry or find some kind of multiplier that works no matter what the variables, it would be greatly appreciated. If we did come up with something that worked, we would be giving a numerical figure and mathematical equation for a previously unmeasurable variable in physics. We could prove(against my own beliefs for a matter of fact) That dimensional perseption has a physical impact on matter. That it actually has it's OWN mass (dark matter/dark energy?!?!) and could be the explanation for the rapidly expanding universe.

now heres some random thoughts...

- the second law of thermal dynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. How can matter then appear or be perceived to increase in energy out put or decrease depending on its home dimension? Well, i don't think the energy output changes, its gotta be the dimension that is efficient, or inefficient. Maybe they evolve or have varying levels of efficiency?

LOL maybe gravity is the weakest form of energy in 3D because it's home dimension is 2D......and a ridiculously strong gravity in 2D makes a flat dimension!!! Ha!This go's to show, theorys always create more questions than they answer.

-all angles are straight lines in a singular dimension. it would take a second dimension to account for the rise or fall of the degree of intercepting planes. None the less, the angle should still be considered in some kind of dimensional friction that would reduce or accelerate the efficiency.(insert mathematical formula)

-light could be the 1st or zeroth dimension: energy in an infinite ray....does light have mass? because i think any type of matter would have to have a 2nd dimension to account for mass.